Blog

Prediction two: the most compelling and effective campaigns will be those which are most human, not necessarily those with the most recognizable brands.

I think campaigns for change tend to stick close to the brand of the organization in question — and for good reason. By developing credible, recognizable brands, charities and NGOs legitimize themselves as businesses, at least in the eyes of would-be donors. There’s an element of practicality to it: just as the meter reader brings his ID when he comes a-knockin, so do so many organizations when they come an-askin’.

But I think social media tools offers the possibility to set aside the brand and humanize the cause, and by doing this over time, to foster meaningful relationships between the consumer and the cause.

dynamic relationships with real people
Nora Younis is an Egyptian journalist and blogger who tweets about daily life in Gaza. Her story is compelling, I think, because it is human and ongoing. As her community (and as the consumers of her messaging), we grow to know her cast of characters and fear for them and hope for them as we would our own friends.

traditional media: gone as far as it can go?
AMV BBDO’s ‘Jane and Adam’ campaign for BT is maybe the most recent example of traditional media telling personal, human stories over a period of time. Television and print campaigns tend to go single-serving with their stories, maybe because it’s so easy to get the serial approach wrong.

brass tacks
Traditional media is pricey, inflexible, requires huge lead-time and several layers of production. Web2 offers the possibility of free-to-cheap campaigns that are agile, portable, instant and almost without artifice. The obvious hurdle is trust — the online community deplores a hoax — but that’s a non-issue for an ethical campaign.

As far as concepts go, micro-credit is brilliant, but it’s not new. However, the re-angling of micro-credit’s Lilliputian lens from recipient to donor is relatively new, and it’s getting a lot of press:

• Howard Lindzon calls 2009 the year of MicroGiving
• The Huffington Post’s John Borthwick and Kenneth Lerer are welcoming a new era in fundraising
• and the 2.0 blogosphere is going on and on about it

Obviously, the credit crunch has taken a massive bite out of corporate giving, but micro-giving seems to be emerging as the new champion of charity for a couple of reasons. I think it’s going to go the distance — below are a few reasons why.

motive
Greed is tacky right now. Being poor is becoming a very real possibility to more and more people — and even if you’re not one of them, chances are you are a touch more restrained w/r/t/ flashing the cash. With the banking profession taking more flack every day for leading us down this road in the first place, we’re absorbing the message that it’s evil to be greedy. Micro-giving allows us to lighten our karmic load and do a little good, even if we don’t have much to spare.

means
Web 2 is the ultimate in connective digi-tissue. Facebook, twitter, tumblr, and a whack of other apps make it so easy to speak to so many. As Borthwick and Lerer note, social media apps make it easy to find and belong to a tribe. And with Paypal, Moneybookers and any number of other legitimate and secure online payment processes available, appealing for money online only seems sensible. The social and commercial infrastructures are in place — it only makes sense for a new solution to emerge. And emerge they have — see tipjoy, ‘simple social payments for great people, causes and content’.

and one more thing…
I think the catalyst in this aggressive emergence of a new kind of giving is the humanization of charity: by cutting out the middleman, or the charity itself, the recipient of the aid becomes the face of that cause. And I think that human story is going to be the driver in compelling more people, from Hugo McBanker to Mommy Van Broke, to reach for their bank details.